Slike strani
PDF
ePub

MR. RATHBONE considered the Amendment a very reasonable one. In small ships the grain would be divided into small bulks.

SIR ANDREW LUSK thought that small river vessels under 100 tons should be exempt.

first-class surveyors could readily be obtained who might efficiently relieve the Permanent Secretaries of the Board of Trade from some of their present duties in regard to the detention of ships under the Act of 1873; but he did not believe that the right class of person to be entrusted with absolute powers was obtainable for every principal seaport in the Kingdom at a moment's notice, and upon a mere yearly engagement. There would, in any case, be many applications for the new Surveyorships, but this-if any large number of appointments were contemplated-would but increase the difficulty of selection.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE hoped that the Government would be extremely careful as to the persons whom they appointed to exercise those large and arbitrary powers, and suggested that from six to eight first-class men would probably be sufficient for that purpose.

Amendment proposed,

a

In page 1, line 6, to leave out the words " sufficient number of," and insert the words "not more than three."-(Mr. Mac Iver.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

COLONEL EGERTON LEIGH recommended that the matter should be left to the responsibility of the Government.

SIR JOHN HAY thought three was obviously too small a number, and hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY proposed to amend Clause 3 by adding the words "such grain, corn, rice, paddy, pulse, seeds, and nuts."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. RATHBONE moved to add the words, "This clause shall not apply to any grain ship previous to the 1st of October, 1875."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. GOURLEY moved that the section should not apply to vessels of less than 200 tons register.

MR. E. J. REED thought this Amendment would weaken the clause, and that it would be a positive invitation to people to sail vessels of less than 200 tons register.

MR. HAYTER opposed the Amendment. He felt certain that if it were carried a greal deal of grain would be carried in very small vessels.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER thought it would not be desirable, without consideration, to introduce any limitation in the clause. At the same time, the matter might be considered between the present time and the third reading.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill re-committed in respect of Clause 4; considered in Committee, and reported. Bill, as amended, considered.

Amendment proposed,

In page 2, line 26, after the word "pounds," to insert the words "the one-third under this section shall be one-third of the tonnage measurement of the cargo."—(Sir John Hay.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. RATHBONE (for Mr. HERSCHELL) moved, in Clause 4, page 3, at end, to add

"8. Every person who is guilty of any offence which is by this section declared to be a misdemeanor shall be liable either to punishment on indictment or to a penalty of one thousand

pounds, to be recovered by the Board of Trade by action in any court of competent jurisdiction, which court may mitigate the same at their discretion; and where a penalty is adjudged under the provisions of this section to be paid by any managing owner of a ship, as defined by sub-section five, the owners of the ship shall become jointly and severally liable for the same as sureties for such managing owner, but in such case the owners shall not be liable to any other proceedings under this section in respect

of the same matter.'

MR. NORWOOD strongly objected to the Amendment, remarking that under the existing state of the law a person who knowingly sent, or attempted to send, a ship to sea in an unseaworthy condition was liable to be prosecuted for a misdemeanour. But the Amendment sought to turn a prosecution for misdemeanour into a simple matter of suing for a fine, for which all the co-owners of

MR. RATHBONE maintained that the Amendment would render the law far more effectual by enabling the Judges to apportion the punishment to the offence.

a ship were to be liable, though they | Proviso were added to the effect that the might be wholly innocent. foundering of a vessel was in itself proof of unseaworthiness as against the managing owner, the clause would then come to mean something very real indeed; but in such case it would have a meaning that would be altogether unreasonable. He (Mr. Mac Iver), however, saw no alternative between this and no meaning at all; and, in its present form, the clause had no meaning at all. He therefore strongly objected to it, and would hope to call attention to the remarks that he had then made when the same subject came up again for discussion next Session

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL said, it appeared to him that there was very great force in the objection of the hon. Member for Hull to the Amendment. It was undesirable to make the owners sureties for the managing owner when, in truth, they might not be in the least to blame. He suggested the omission of the latter part of the proposed clause.

MR. RATHBONE was willing to accept the suggestion of the Solicitor General.

MR. BATES confessed that he saw no great objection to the Amendment. He had been a managing shipowner for many years, and he had always understood that if he did anything wrong, his co-owners were liable as well as himself. MR. MAC IVER strongly objected to Clause 4, and said that it would be of no earthly use, and without any result other than annoyance to shipowners, by compelling the registration of so-called managing owners. The clause, he maintained, would fail precisely as Clause 11 of the Act of 1871 had failed, and from precisely similar reasons. He deprecated this concession to the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell) and the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone), and held that the clause was mere wastepaper legislation. It read stringently, but meant nothing; nor could it, he (Mr. Mac Iver) thought, be made to mean anything unless additions were made to it such as would cause it to mean a great deal more than was reasonable. Nothing would ever be proved under the clause as it stood. There was nothing to compel the so-called managing owner to actually manage the ship, nor was there any endeavour to reach those persons who owned vessels under the provisions of the Limited Liability Act. If the directors of limited liability companies were compelled to register some of their number as managing owners, and if it were assumed that the registered managing owner must in every case possess personal knowledge in regard to questions of seaworthiness, the clause might then come to mean something. If a

MR. FORSYTH said, that the latter part of the proposed Amendment introduced a totally new principle into the law of England-namely, that of making a man criminally liable for an offence committed by his partner with which he had nothing whatever to do. A penalty implied an offence, and no man ought to be punished for an offence of which he was not himself guilty. He hoped the Committee would reject a proposal embodying a principle which was unknown to the English law and he believed to any other law.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER observed, that though there was a great deal to be said in favour of the present proposal, yet, considering the many questions of importance which it involved, he thought it should not be introduced into a Bill of a temporary character at the period of the Session at which they had arrived. The matter must come up for consideration when the permanent measure to which they looked forward was dealt with.

Amendment negatived.

SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY moved, at end of Clause 4, to add—

section shall not affect any punishment incurred "Provided, That the repeal enacted by this or to be incurred in respect of any offence against the enactment hereby repealed, or any legal proceeding in respect of any such punishment, and any such legal proceeding may be carried on as if this Act had not passed." Proviso agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (ENGLAND) BILL.-[Lords.] [BILL 277.] (Mr. Disraeli.)

CONSIDERATION.

Bill, as amended, considered.

MR. HUNT moved to insert after Clause 9 the following Clause :

(Deduction in first class for want of repair, &c.)

"A. In the ascertainment of the amount of the tenant's compensation in respect of an improvement of the first class, there shall be taken into account, in reduction thereof, any sum reasonably necessary to be expended for the purpose of putting the same into tenantable repair or good condition."

Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill. MR. HUNT also moved, after Clause 10, to insert the following Clause:(Exclusion of compensation in third class after exhausting crop.)

"B. The tenant shall not be entitled to compensation in respect of an improvement of the third class, where, after the execution thereof, there has been taken from the portion of the holding on which the same was executed, a crop of corn, potatoes, hay, or seed, or any other exhausting crop.'

"

SIR THOMAS ACLAND said, that the object of the Bill seemed to be to enable limited owners to charge their estates and to put them under stringent regulations for doing so. He thought the Amendments should have been placed on the Paper earlier.

MR. T. CAVE thought that the hon. Baronet had misconceived the object of the Bill.

MR. HUNT expressed his regret that the Amendments had not been placed on the Paper sooner. The fault was his, and he was exceedingly sorry for it, but the delay arose from his being deeply engaged with other public business. This provision was for the protection of the incoming tenant, but it was also partially for the benefit of the outgoing tenant. Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

MR. HUNT moved the following

Clauses:

(Exclusion of compensation for consumption of cake, &c. in certain cases)

"C. The tenant shall not be entitled to compensation in respect of an improvement of the third class, consisting in the consumption of cake or other feeding stuff, where under the custom of the country or an agreement he is entitled to and claims payment from the landlord or incoming tenant in respect of the additional value given by that consumption to the

manure left on the holding at the determination of the tenancy."

After Clause 18, insert the following Clauses :

(Requisition for appointment of umpire by Inclosure Commissioners, &c.)

"D. Provided that, where two referees are appointed, an umpire may be appointed as follows:

"(1.) If either party, on appointing a referee, requires, by notice in writing to the other, that Commissioners for England and Wales, then the the umpire shall be appointed by the Inclosure umpire, and any successor to him, shall be appointed, on the application of either party, by those Commissioners:

66

‘(2.) In every other case, if either party, on appointing a referee, requires, by notice in writing to the other, that the umpire shall be appointed by the County Court, then unless the other party dissents, by notice in writing, therefrom, the umpire, and any successor to him, shall, on the application of either party, be so appointed, and, in case of such dissent, the umpire, and any successor to him, shall be appointed, on the application of either party, by the Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales."

(Exercise of powers of county court.)

"E. The powers of the county court under this Act, relative to the appointment of a referee or umpire, shall be exerciseable by the judge of the court having jurisdiction, whether he is without or within his district, and may, by consent of the parties, be exercised by the registrar of the court."

Clauses agreed to, and added to the Bill. MR. NEWDEGATE moved the following clause

(Manure made on the holdings.)

"The manure made in the stables, sheds, and

foldyards from the last year's produce of the holding shall be the property of the tenant, but shall not, after notice to quit has been given, be removed from the holding or sold without the consent of the landlord or his agent in writing. The value of any portion of such manure, which may not at the determination of the tenancy have been applied to the land in the due course of husbandry, shall be estimated by the referees or the umpire, and shall form part of the compensation to be awarded to the tenant."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

this was a very valuable clause. COLONEL EGERTON LEIGH thought

MR. ASSHETON thought the effect of the clause would be to put a premium upon bad farming.

MR. GOLDSMID considered that no bad results would follow from the adoption of the clause. It merely carried out what was already the custom in Kent, and answered well there; but he thought they were trying to do by this Bill that

which was impossible-namely, provide such cultivation by the landlord may be refor all the varying circumstances of dif- covered as rent in arrear, or may be computed ferent soils and principles of farming. as compensation due to the landlord by the referees or the umpire." MR. HUNT approved the principle The clause was rendered the more necesof the clause in an agricultural point of view; but as it would operate in many notice from six to twelve months. By sary in consequence of the change of cases as an interference with custom, he this clause a landlord would have a more thought it should not be introduced with- simple and speedy way of obtaining pos out full discussion, and many Members interested in the question were not pre-prevent waste, especially in the case session than by the present law, so as to

sent.

MR. LEEMAN thought that the foldyard manure ought to follow the same fate as the chemical manure upon an estate. He was sorry the clause had not been accepted, though the whole of the Bill was purely permissive and would not be brought into operation.

MR. KNÄTCHBULL-HUGESSEN

thought that the latter part of the clause -providing that the tenant should be paid for the value of manure in his yard, whilst for manure on the land he would only be paid according to the value which the referees might find to have been already added to the land—would be an inducement to bad farming, as a tenant would be tempted to keep the manure in the farmyard in order to be paid for it.

MR. MONK regretted that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) should have opposed the clause on the ground of the absence of Members interested in the question, for ample notice had been given by his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire upon this subject.

SIR THOMAS ACLAND said, it was a matter of common practice in various counties to pay the outgoing tenant for the farmyard manures, and he had done that himself.

Question put.

The House divided:-Ayes 44; Noes 67 Majority 23.

where a tenant died shortly after Lady
desire to continue the occupancy, would
Day, when the executors, who had no
have to remain in possession two years.
He also proposed that waste after notice
should be recoverable as arrears of rent.
The yearly notice was advantageous to
the tenant in getting rid of his stock and
enabling him to look out for another
the landlord of waste.
farm, but there was extreme danger to

Clause brought up, and read the first

time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."

MR. GOLDSMID objected to the clause as being extremely unfair to the tenant. The landlord's rights were sufficiently protected by Clause 15, and a litigious landlord would, under the proposed clause, be constantly harassing his tenants.

MR. KNIGHT supported the clause on the ground that without it the tenant might-if leaving his farm in an illhumour with his landlord-do an enormous damage to the land for which the landlord could exact no compensation.

MR. RODWELL suggested that such an extreme contingency as that alluded to was already provided for in Clause 15. He regarded the clause proposed as being unworkable.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, that the Government could not assent to the clause, because they did not think

MR. NEWDEGATE moved the fol- that it could be worked. lowing clause :

(If tenant commit waste, or improperly cultivate, the judge of the county court may direct landlord to enter on the farm.)

"If, after notice to quit has been given, complaint be made and proved to the satisfaction of the judge of the county court that a tenant is committing waste or is neglecting the proper cultivation of the farm, the judge may direct the landlord to enter upon the farm in such manner as may be necessary to prevent such

waste, or to carry on the cultivation of the
farm;
and the expense of such entry and of

COLONEL EGERTON LEIGH thought the clause would be unfair to the tenant and worrying to the landlord, and he should therefore oppose it.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause withdrawn.

MR. ALFRED MARTEN moved the following clause :

(Service of notice.) "Any notice under this Act may be served

upon the person to whom the notice is to be
given, either personally or by leaving it for him
at his usual or last known place of abode in
England, or by sending it through the post in a
registered letter addressed to him at such place
of abode; and any notice, if sent by post as
aforesaid, shall be deemed to have been served
at the time when the letter containing the same
would be delivered in the ordinary course of
post, and in proving such service it shall be
sufficient to prove that the letter containing the
notice was properly addressed and posted."
He added that many notices were at pre-

sent so served.

MR. MELDON hoped that the clause would not be agreed to, because it would change the whole law as to the service of notices to quit.

SIR HENRY JAMES did not see why the service of notices to quit should be altered.

MR. GREGORY observed, that many important notices were now served through the post, and no inconvenience had arisen from this.

MR. JACKSON also thought that this mode of service worked very well.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, he had heard no sufficient reason for rejecting the clause.

to the landlord of the intention of the tenant to remove the fixture;

"6. At any time before the expiration of the notice of removal, the landlord by notice in writing to be given by him to the tenant, may elect to purchase any fixture comprised in the notice of removal, and any fixture thus elected to be purchased shall be left by the tenant, and shall become the property of the landlord, who shall pay the tenant the fair value thereof, and any difference as to the value shall be settled by a reference under this Act."

The object of the clause was to change the law, the Courts having ruled that trade fixtures belonged to a tenant, but agricultural fixtures to the landlord. To meet the wish of the Government he added a special provision relating to steam engines, for the erection of which the landlord's consent must be first obtained to entitle the tenant to the benefit of the clause.

MR. HUNT thought the clause a valuable one, and accepted it.

MR. GREGORY agreed with the new clause so far as regarded machinery, but he objected to the words "other fixtures," because their legal acceptance was very indefinite.

MR. MELDON protested against such an alteration of the law of the land. Clause agreed to, and added to the There ought to be some definition of

Bill.

MR. ALFRED MARTEN moved the following Clause:

(Fixtures.)

"Where after the commencement of this Act a tenant affixes to his holding any engine, machinery, or other fixture for which he shall not under the provisions of this Act or otherwise be entitled to or receive compensation, and which shall not be so affixed in pursuance of some obligation in that behalf or instead of some fixture belonging to the landlord, then such engine, machinery, or other fixture shall be the property of and be removable by the tenant: Provided as follows:

"1. Before the removal of any fixture the tenant shall pay all rent owing by him, and shall perform or satisfy all other his obligations to the landlord in respect of the holding;

the word "fixtures."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL was of opinion that if the clause was restricted to machinery, it would go a very little way towards removing the inequality which existed between the farmer and the trader.

MR. HENLEY thought it desirable that there should be some restriction as to the place where any machinery should be fixed, otherwise it might be erected just before the landlord's windows.

MR. NEWDEGATE was in favour of the clause, because it was recommended by the Report of the Committee of 1848, but he felt the force of the objection of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley).

MR. HUNT then moved to omit the

"2. In the removal of any fixture the tenant shall not do any avoidable damage to any build-4th proviso to the effect that the tenant,

ing or other part of the holding;

3. Immediately after the removal of any fixture the tenant shall make good all damage occasioned to any building or other part of the holding by the removal;

"4. The tenant, if required by the landlord, shall, before the removal of any fixture, give security to him for making good any damage which may be occasioned to any building or other part of the holding by the removal, and any difference as to such security shall be settled by a reference under this Act;

5. No tenant shall remove any fixture without giving one month's previous notice in writing

if required, should give security to the landlord for making good any damage to any building occasioned by the removal of any fixture.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill.

MR. HUNT moved in Clause 4, page 2, line 8, after " tenancy," to insert, as a new paragraph

« PrejšnjaNaprej »